Iron Mike Tyson admits he would not have been prepared for Royce Gracie in 1993

[MikeMcMann]

We've gotten really off on a tangent here in talking about a term that predates both of us. You're still not making sense though. If Bob and Joe are both professional boxers, but Bob is better in every respect, Joe still has the puncher's chance to win, because it only takes one punch to win a fight. If Joe fights Ted, who is not a professional boxer, Joe is now the favorite to win, and no one would say he has a puncher's chance. Ted now has a puncher's chance. Joe's chances against Bob may be higher than Ted's chances against Joe, but both are still longshots. That's boxing.

In MMA, all three guys would be longshots to win, because they have no grappling or wrestling training. They would all have the puncher's chance. Joe may have a better chance than Ted. And Bob may have a better chance than Joe. But overall it's still a very slim chance, as evidenced by the very few fights that have ended with strikes before any grappling takes place, in the history of MMA.

im making perfect sense thx.

The reason a top boxer V another top boxer is referred to as only having a punchers chance is because boxer A is more skilled everywhere EXCEPT for punching power. Thus the punchers chance.


In this case if a top elite boxer like Tyson or Mayweather in their primes came to MMA they would have far more than just a punchers chance as they would be the more skilled and athletic person in every single regard outside of once the fight is taken to ground.

So to suggest a term that like punchers chance for Tyson or Floyd V Ronda is wrong and insulting as they are not outclassed every where and in fact are far superior everywhere up until the fight hits the ground.

The big problem here, and we see it all the time on this forum is that few here value athleticism in the question despite the fact MMA is a sport and athleticism will matter.

Ronda can have the best td's and finishing game once the fight hits the mat but she is still slow as molasses even amongst her fellow WMMA athletes. They regularly landed punches on her before she good gain clinch as she walks in straight lines with her head on a post and she is very flat footed. And lets not forget she is a GIRL and girls already have a massive athleticism deficit to boys.

In the case of Floyd he is one of the most elite male athletes of all time particularly in his chosen profession. His most elite skils are his timing, distance control, hand speed, coordination, and counter fighting. He makes other elite males look bad in those regards. Each one of those I would say are Ronda's weakest points. And again remember she is a girl and not an elite male.

So to suggest Floyd would only have a punchers chance against Ronda would be assinine as it suggests he is outclassed everywhere but has more power and therefore punchers chance. It is the same re these Tyson discussions. the skill and athleticism gap matters and it matters a lot. I am not saying Tyson wins but he certainly has a good chance and certainly more than the typical punchers chance.

 

[sdss]

No, you keep misunderstanding the puncher's chance as it relates to MMA. It just means finishing with punches/strikes before any grappling happens. The history of MMA has shown it's a slim chance, no matter who the two guys are. It's not insulting to say that Mike Tyson has a slim chance in winning a type of fight he's not prepared for. He's said that himself.

Continuing to bring Ronda Rousey and Floyd Mayweather really confuses things. Ronda and Floyd c. 2016 is very different than Tyson vs. Royce c 1993.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Nobody is ignoring skill and talent. That's the deciding factor here. Royce has more skill and talent in grappling than an untrained-in-grappling Mike Tyson. That's why Royce would win, because his grappling skill and talent would trump Mike Tyson's superior punching power, hand speed, and boxing reflexes, because grappling skill and talent has been shown to be much more successful in MMA.

This is based on all of Royce's fights, and the history of MMA as a whole.

The belief that Mike Tyson would win seems to be based on his history in boxing, where he never fought anyone with grappling skill and talent. This somehow makes more sense to some people.

Why do you think we have seen so many KO artists in MMA, like Houston Alexander have so much success up until they start fighting near top comp when almost all the guys they beat are more well rounded than them particularly in the ground game area?

 

[sdss]

Why do you think we have seen so many KO artists in MMA, like Houston Alexander have so much success up until they start fighting near top comp when almost all the guys they beat are more well rounded than them particularly in the ground game area?

Houston Alexander? That name certainly takes things in a different direction. Can you explain further how he relates to this? I'm legitimately interested.

 

[MikeMcMann]

No, you keep misunderstanding the puncher's chance as it relates to MMA. It just means finishing with punches/strikes before any grappling happens. The history of MMA has shown it's a slim chance, no matter who the two guys are.

Continuing to bring Ronda Rousey and Floyd Mayweather really confuses things. Ronda and Floyd c. 2016 is very different than Tyson vs. Royce c 1993.

And no you keep making false statements as you cannot point to the history of MMA when you have NEVER had elite examples like Tyson in the mix.

If I create a new sport tomorrow and at first the athletes that flock to are almost 100% wrestlers and many of the top wrestlers but a few BJJ guys jump in and only a couple strikers and the wrestlers dominate it WOULD BE STUPID to keep pointing to the history as being indicative of what would happen in the future if more top BJJ or Strikers came in to the sport in equal numbers.

If the best boxer to come are C level guys and they are competing against the A level wrestlers and BJJ guys then you CANNOT assume that with more A level guys from the striking sports they would not fair better than prior history. That would be just dumb.

 

[sdss]

And no you keep making false statements as you cannot point to the history of MMA when you have NEVER had elite examples like Tyson in the mix.

If I create a new sport tomorrow and at first the athletes that flock to are almost 100% wrestlers and many of the top wrestlers but a few BJJ guys jump in and only a couple strikers and the wrestlers dominate it WOULD BE STUPID

I haven't made any false statements. There's definitely never been a boxer of Mike Tyson's level in MMA. There have been guys who have been close, but not in their primes. I don't think that precludes using the history of MMA as evidence.

Are you actually saying that Mike Tyson, a great boxer, but with no grappling experience, is so unique, that nothing that has been seen in the history of MMA applies to him?

I don't understand your second sentence.

 

[TheAmericanGazelle]

A 99th percentile boxer is going to have much better boxing than a 50th percentile boxer, but (short of cross-training and prior knowledge), approximately the same level of ability in things that matter in stopping takedowns from competent grapplers.

If Tyson hit Royce with a clean strike, he would indeed be "more KOed" than if he got hit with a clean punch from pretty much any other boxer...but none of that matters if you don't hit in the first place.

10 x 0 = 0
100000 x 0 = 0
1e100 x 0 = 0

Being "better at boxing" doesn't mean anything if your opponent can immediately force you into non-boxing elements of the fight game.

And no...boxing-based footwork and general speed/dexterity elements don't compensate for the massive gulf between a competent grappler and a newbie sufficient to address takedowns. I've done both boxing and grappling-based arts, and that runs 100 percent counter to my experiences and pretty much all the "test runs" we've seen in practice (albeit, on a smaller scale).

 

[sdss]

If the best boxer to come are C level guys and they are competing against the A level wrestlers and BJJ guys then you CANNOT assume that with more A level guys from the striking sports they would not fair better than prior history. That would be just dumb.

I don't think it's fair to call James Toney or Ray Mercer C-level. They were just old. Also, there have been A-level kickboxers that have tried MMA.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Houston Alexander? That name certainly takes things in a different direction. Can you explain further how he relates to this? I'm legitimately interested.

In the fights strikers like him (or a better example would be Melvin Guillard) win its usually where they have a huge athletic difference over their opponents. There opponents may be better grapplers but these guys are far more explosive, athletic and stronger and better everywhere outside the grappling. So if the opponent is not the higher skilled guys who can impose a grappling game they get KTFO.

the Skill gap matters because if you have a massive skill deficit you will be very vulnerable (Ronda getting punched in the face to gain clinch) as you try to impose your game.

Let me ask you this then. Do you think Tyson would stand a chance against non pro, average Joe's training MMA and submissions for decades in an MMA fight?

 

[MikeMcMann]

I haven't made any false statements. There's definitely never been a boxer of Mike Tyson's level in MMA. There have been guys who have been close, but not in their primes. I don't think that precludes using the history of MMA as evidence.

Are you actually saying that Mike Tyson, a great boxer, but with no grappling experience, is so unique, that nothing that has been seen in the history of MMA applies to him?

I don't understand your second sentence.

False statement again.

Sorry that caveat after does not save it.

And yes we have ZERO data on how truly elite top boxers in their prime would do in MMA and speculation using past their prime folks simply does not work.

Once again you are vastly undervaluing the value of their athleticism which when talking about sport should be the top most factor when considering athletes.

We have heavy handed Costco tire changers who can decide to come into MMA fresh and with only minimal training make a big impact and get to title shots and that is because the athleticism level is still pretty low in this sport such that you just need one decent aspect and some cross training to compete. This sport will advance and truly evolve when real A level athletes in high school or before, who have options, choose to stream towards MMA as their sport of choice. that will be the first real significant evolution we see in this sports top fighters.

 

[sdss]

the Skill gap matters because if you have a massive skill deficit you will be very vulnerable (Ronda getting punched in the face to gain clinch) as you try to impose your game.

Let me ask you this then. Do you think Tyson would stand a chance against non pro, average Joe's training MMA and submissions for decades in an MMA fight?

In this situation, the skill gap is in Royce's favor, not Tyson's. Royce possesses more skill for MMA than Tyson does. The athleticism gap is in Mike's favor.

Of course I think Tyson stands a chance against a non-pro who has trained in MMA and submissions for decades. In 1993, Royce Gracie essentially WAS an average joe trained in MMA and submissions.

 

[sdss]

False statement again.

Sorry that caveat after does not save it.

So you're saying that Ray Mercer and James Toney were not even close to the same level of boxer that Mike Tyson was?

 

[the ambush]

Ken Shamrock was nearly beaten to death by Jerry Sags in a street fight. Shamrock was never a top fighter and all of his “best” wins were fixed slap fights in pancrase.

No you wouldn’t. That also not what happened. Shamrock snuck attacked Brian Knobbs and then Sags came to his defense and beat Shamrock nearly to death. Shamrock can’t even beat up on e of the Nasty Boys, he’s a clown.

What street fight? I read in Ken’s own autobiography he was in a hotel room and admitted the two Nasty Boys got the better of him. It was a 2 against 1 fight.

 

[sdss]

Once again you are vastly undervaluing the value of their athleticism which when talking about sport should be the top most factor when considering athletes.

I would posit that you are vastly overestimating the value of athleticism. Especially in focusing on athleticism from sports that aren't as beneficial to MMA as other sports.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I don't think it's fair to call James Toney or Ray Mercer C-level. They were just old. Also, there have been A-level kickboxers that have tried MMA.

I can hardly take you seriously with comments like that.

They were beyond C level and the term punch drunk has been used with both and regularly with Toney.

My gawd do you think Tim Sylvia today is just an older version of his prime self and if he got in a cage with a top elite boxer and got KO's we could cite that as history as to why top MMA champs lose to top boxers?

I mean Tim was never a physical specimen to begin with or someone who would be called a top tier elite athlete and both Toney and Mercer were in their sports before ending up like Tim.

 

[Ilovepizza]

mike tyson without exp. is dangerous, but royce should win.
tyson with exp.? thats another story.

tysons power/speed/athleticisim alone should carry him

What street fight? I read in his autobiography he was in a hotel room and admitted the two Nasty Boys got the better of him.

i have no idea which one he means

 

[MikeMcMann]

In this situation, the skill gap is in Royce's favor, not Tyson's. Royce possesses more skill for MMA than Tyson does. The athleticism gap is in Mike's favor.

Of course I think Tyson stands a chance against a non-pro who has trained in MMA and submissions for decades. In 1993, Royce Gracie essentially WAS an average joe trained in MMA and submissions.

No its not because we are talking about the none specific domain skills.

We both accept that if Royce can get the fight into his domain he wins. You would also accept that if Tyson can do the same he wins.

So the question is who can dictate where the fight takes place and what skills make that happen?

THOSE SKILLS are all innate athletic skills (speed, reflexes, balance, timing, space awareness, counter fighting movement, etc) all favour Tyson.

Royce has to somehow get past that. He is at a deficit in all those areas needed to close the distance. that should be undeniable.

Could Ronda close the distance on prime MayWeather, Roy Jones Jr or Tyson before they could sidestep and land a punch? is her speed that much slower than Royce's?

 

[MikeMcMann]

So you're saying that Ray Mercer and James Toney were not even close to the same level of boxer that Mike Tyson was?

Are you really that dumb?

No they were not even close at the time they fought in MMA.



(And he was on another level prime for prime as well.)

 

[sdss]

No its not because we are talking about the none specific domain skills.

We both accept that if Royce can get the fight into his domain he wins. You would also accept that if Tyson can do the same he wins.

So the question is who can dictate where the fight takes place and what skills make that happen?

THOSE SKILLS are all innate athletic skills (speed, reflexes, balance, timing, space awareness, counter fighting movement, etc) all favour Tyson.

Royce has to somehow get past that. He is at a deficit in all those areas needed to close the distance. that should be undeniable.

Could Ronda close the distance on prime MayWeather, Roy Jones Jr or Tyson before they could sidestep and land a punch? is her speed that much slower than Royce's?

Royce has shown that he can close the distance an get the takedown against a variety of different size and types of fighters. Mike Tyson has never sown that he can prevent guys from taking him down. He got clinched plenty in even just boxing. Royce possesses more skill in getting the fight to the ground than Mike does in keeping the fight standing. That's undeniable.

Mike, it seems as though you really do think that Mike Tyson IS such a unique specimen that nothing in the history of MMA applies to him.

If that's the case, so be it. There's nothing more I can say other than I disagree that he's that unique.

 

[sdss]

Are you really that dumb?

No they were not even close at the time they fought in MMA.

(And he was on another level prime for prime as well.)

You said there haven't been any boxers of Mike's level in MMA. I said there have, just not in their primes. That's not dumb. It's true.

And all of this ignores that boxing isn't the only striking style, and it's not the only striking style that has been tried in MMA.