ninjaunicorn
Green Belt
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 0
Tyson isn't the fastest nor the strongest
he's the perfect combination of the two
he's the perfect combination of the two
Is tyson the fastest person in boxing history
- Thread starter iwannabeadored
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2002
- Messages
- 22,965
- Reaction score
- 1,526
NinjaU -
check out the vid on this thread:
http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f53/mtagwa-took-some-hard-shots-video-1290037/
Kind of Tyson-esq
thelyricalmaste
Green Belt
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2010
- Messages
- 971
- Reaction score
- 0
Maybe Tommy Morrison comes close and Earnie Shavers was very explosive in his heyday. But when Tyson really pushed himself he was unbelievable. Usually what distinguishes fast guys is the combination speed, but Tyson could get from A to B incredibly quickly.
GordonBrown
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 901
- Reaction score
- 0
The first thing you learn about asking people Mike Tyson questions on Boxing forums is... Don't bother.
For some strange reason "hardcore" boxing fans don't like to praise Mikes boxing ability. It's a bit like Lesnar in MMA, he could beat Fedor with no remaining limbs, yet hes still just a "big strong guy".
A prime teenage Mike Tyson was the most exciting boxer EVER.
For some strange reason "hardcore" boxing fans don't like to praise Mikes boxing ability. It's a bit like Lesnar in MMA, he could beat Fedor with no remaining limbs, yet hes still just a "big strong guy".
A prime teenage Mike Tyson was the most exciting boxer EVER.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,041
- Reaction score
- 200
Yeah that just added tons of credibility to your post ....
There is a difference between being exciting and being the best. Tyson COULD have been the GOAT but that's what it is in the end, unrealized potential because he screwed up his own life after Cus's death.
When someone stood up to him he folded due to lack of mental strength and serious training because of a fucked up personal life.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2008
- Messages
- 5,469
- Reaction score
- 0
Tyson's prime was not in his teenage years.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,009
- Reaction score
- 0
Check this article on Mike I read earlier today.
Iron Mike Tyson:
Myth or Monster?
By Jim Trunzo
If the title of this piece is misleading due to Tyson's outside-the-ring activities, it's understandable; the use of "monster" can easily be misconstrued. However, the point being made refers to the Mike Tyson inside the ropes, the Mike Tyson who at one time looked like he might become the best heavyweight in the history of boxing.
Just as it seemed a simple task to anoint Tyson as an all-time great in the division when he was a razor-edged scythe among the chaff that was the heavyweight division during the mid-80's through 1991, it seems equally simple to dismiss the post-prison Tyson as a bullying fraud. In retrospect, Mike Tyson is neither. Looking at Iron Mike's body of work as a whole, one might more realistically come to the conclusion that Tyson was somewhat overrated early on but unfairly trashed because of his recent pitiful performances.
The real Mike Tyson is a combination of both the ferocious man-eater that thrilled boxing fans with his raw power and blindingly fast hands and the blustering Mike Tyson who seemed to fall apart when opponents refused to be intimidated by his mere presence. The truth is that the merger of the two Tysons had far more to do with the psyche of Tyson than with his physical condition, a point too often overlooked when dealing with Tyson's career as a whole.
"No one will like me if I lose."
Tyson spoke these words to Teddy Atlas, prior to an amateur fight, then buried his head in Atlas' shoulder and began to cry. The scene was caught on film and might well be the most accurate gauge of the inner turmoil that has chewed up Iron Mike throughout his career.
On one hand, Tyson exhibited savage disdain for the mere mortals whom he faced in the ring: fighters who didn't have his brutal power or undeniably fast hands or solid chin. On the other hand, Tyson was deathly afraid of losing the affection of those who either were or pretended to be his friend. This Tyson based being liked on winning; this Tyson never truly believed he was worth liking.
It's devastating for a fighter to lose a fight that costs him a spot in the ranking or a potential big payday or both; how much more devastating, then, if a defeat means losing the only kindness, the only affection, the only sense of being cared about you've ever experienced? It should come as no surprise to read incidents of Tyson disappearing only days before fights and having to be tracked down and convinced to show for the event. It should not be the least bit shocking to discover the number of times Iron Mike proclaimed he was through, that he was giving up boxing, and that he didn't want to fight any more. And this was Tyson's actions while he was either approaching or in his prime!
One can only guess at what has taken place inside a Mike Tyson who has lost the only true skills that he possessed, that he had a chance to believe it, his physical tools. The side-show that Tyson has become, both in and out of the ring, is in many ways more tragic than disgusting, albeit the line between the two is thin!
WHO DOES MIKE TYSON BEAT AND WHO BEATS MIKE TYSON?
A close look at Tyson's record on his way to the title fails to confirm what boxing pundits have long touted as "the kind of fighter who beats Tyson." Conventional wisdom states that Tyson, due in a large part to his 5-foot-11 height and his short 71-inch reach, is susceptible to taller heavyweights, who possess a good right hand and a good left jab. Oh, really? Don't most fighters have trouble with tall, orthodox fighters with the two essential punches necessary in a boxing arsenal -- a left jab and good right?
The so-called experts point to Buster Douglas, who on his night of nights weighed in at 231 pounds, stood 6-foot-3 and had an 83-inch reach (a 12-inch advantage over the short-armed Tyson). Shortly before the Douglas fight, Tyson had destroyed Frank Bruno who weighted in at 228 pounds, stood 6-foot-3 and had an 82-inch reach!
James "Quick" Tillis extended Tyson the full 10 rounds and stood 6-foot-1, weighted only 208 and had a minimal reach advantage at 76 inches. Tony Tubbs, who was two inches taller than Tillis and 30 pounds heavier, with a reach of 79 inches (3 inches more than Tillis and 8 inches more than Tyson) fell in two rounds to Iron Mike.
The point is that for every tall orthodox fighter with a decent jab and right hand who took Tyson the distance, there's a comparable fighter -- both talent-wise and physically -- that Tyson dismantled. For every punch and clutch Bonecrusher Smith, there's a Pinklon Thomas. If you want to reduce it to numbers, Evander Holyfield and Trevor Berbick are both 6-foot-2, have 77 1/2 inch reaches, and weighed in at 218 pounds for their fights against Tyson. Berbick lasted two rounds and we know what Holyfield accomplished against Mike in their first meeting, a grueling 11th round TKO for Holyfield, prior to feeding Tyson in their second bout.
The physical analysis fails to tilt one way or another. Height, reach and weight alone never beat Mike Tyson. Movement, intellect, a solid chin and heart beat Mike Tyson, as they do most fighters. It's also worth noting that Tyson had hit age 30 by the time he met Holyfield, had been fighting for 12 years and had endured his lengthy prison term. Tyson was already 36 when he walked toward the slaughter -- err, the ring! -- when he faced Lennox Lewis.
An old boxing adage proclaims: The legs go first; the punch goes last. Well, Tyson without his legs that, at his best, allowed him to move rapidly in and out and cut off the ring, was half a fighter; one who only had a punch and a prayer to rely on.
Armed with an appreciation of what made Mike Tyson tick, as well as an appreciation of his physical skills and limitations, the question still remains, "How good was Mike Tyson?" The answer is very good but not great.
Iron Mike Tyson:
Myth or Monster?
By Jim Trunzo
If the title of this piece is misleading due to Tyson's outside-the-ring activities, it's understandable; the use of "monster" can easily be misconstrued. However, the point being made refers to the Mike Tyson inside the ropes, the Mike Tyson who at one time looked like he might become the best heavyweight in the history of boxing.
Just as it seemed a simple task to anoint Tyson as an all-time great in the division when he was a razor-edged scythe among the chaff that was the heavyweight division during the mid-80's through 1991, it seems equally simple to dismiss the post-prison Tyson as a bullying fraud. In retrospect, Mike Tyson is neither. Looking at Iron Mike's body of work as a whole, one might more realistically come to the conclusion that Tyson was somewhat overrated early on but unfairly trashed because of his recent pitiful performances.
The real Mike Tyson is a combination of both the ferocious man-eater that thrilled boxing fans with his raw power and blindingly fast hands and the blustering Mike Tyson who seemed to fall apart when opponents refused to be intimidated by his mere presence. The truth is that the merger of the two Tysons had far more to do with the psyche of Tyson than with his physical condition, a point too often overlooked when dealing with Tyson's career as a whole.
"No one will like me if I lose."
Tyson spoke these words to Teddy Atlas, prior to an amateur fight, then buried his head in Atlas' shoulder and began to cry. The scene was caught on film and might well be the most accurate gauge of the inner turmoil that has chewed up Iron Mike throughout his career.
On one hand, Tyson exhibited savage disdain for the mere mortals whom he faced in the ring: fighters who didn't have his brutal power or undeniably fast hands or solid chin. On the other hand, Tyson was deathly afraid of losing the affection of those who either were or pretended to be his friend. This Tyson based being liked on winning; this Tyson never truly believed he was worth liking.
It's devastating for a fighter to lose a fight that costs him a spot in the ranking or a potential big payday or both; how much more devastating, then, if a defeat means losing the only kindness, the only affection, the only sense of being cared about you've ever experienced? It should come as no surprise to read incidents of Tyson disappearing only days before fights and having to be tracked down and convinced to show for the event. It should not be the least bit shocking to discover the number of times Iron Mike proclaimed he was through, that he was giving up boxing, and that he didn't want to fight any more. And this was Tyson's actions while he was either approaching or in his prime!
One can only guess at what has taken place inside a Mike Tyson who has lost the only true skills that he possessed, that he had a chance to believe it, his physical tools. The side-show that Tyson has become, both in and out of the ring, is in many ways more tragic than disgusting, albeit the line between the two is thin!
WHO DOES MIKE TYSON BEAT AND WHO BEATS MIKE TYSON?
A close look at Tyson's record on his way to the title fails to confirm what boxing pundits have long touted as "the kind of fighter who beats Tyson." Conventional wisdom states that Tyson, due in a large part to his 5-foot-11 height and his short 71-inch reach, is susceptible to taller heavyweights, who possess a good right hand and a good left jab. Oh, really? Don't most fighters have trouble with tall, orthodox fighters with the two essential punches necessary in a boxing arsenal -- a left jab and good right?
The so-called experts point to Buster Douglas, who on his night of nights weighed in at 231 pounds, stood 6-foot-3 and had an 83-inch reach (a 12-inch advantage over the short-armed Tyson). Shortly before the Douglas fight, Tyson had destroyed Frank Bruno who weighted in at 228 pounds, stood 6-foot-3 and had an 82-inch reach!
James "Quick" Tillis extended Tyson the full 10 rounds and stood 6-foot-1, weighted only 208 and had a minimal reach advantage at 76 inches. Tony Tubbs, who was two inches taller than Tillis and 30 pounds heavier, with a reach of 79 inches (3 inches more than Tillis and 8 inches more than Tyson) fell in two rounds to Iron Mike.
The point is that for every tall orthodox fighter with a decent jab and right hand who took Tyson the distance, there's a comparable fighter -- both talent-wise and physically -- that Tyson dismantled. For every punch and clutch Bonecrusher Smith, there's a Pinklon Thomas. If you want to reduce it to numbers, Evander Holyfield and Trevor Berbick are both 6-foot-2, have 77 1/2 inch reaches, and weighed in at 218 pounds for their fights against Tyson. Berbick lasted two rounds and we know what Holyfield accomplished against Mike in their first meeting, a grueling 11th round TKO for Holyfield, prior to feeding Tyson in their second bout.
The physical analysis fails to tilt one way or another. Height, reach and weight alone never beat Mike Tyson. Movement, intellect, a solid chin and heart beat Mike Tyson, as they do most fighters. It's also worth noting that Tyson had hit age 30 by the time he met Holyfield, had been fighting for 12 years and had endured his lengthy prison term. Tyson was already 36 when he walked toward the slaughter -- err, the ring! -- when he faced Lennox Lewis.
An old boxing adage proclaims: The legs go first; the punch goes last. Well, Tyson without his legs that, at his best, allowed him to move rapidly in and out and cut off the ring, was half a fighter; one who only had a punch and a prayer to rely on.
Armed with an appreciation of what made Mike Tyson tick, as well as an appreciation of his physical skills and limitations, the question still remains, "How good was Mike Tyson?" The answer is very good but not great.
GordonBrown
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 901
- Reaction score
- 0
What a strange post that basically proves my first point.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,041
- Reaction score
- 200
What a strange fella who does not understand the difference between being exciting and being the best.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 30,373
- Reaction score
- 9,935
Tyson didn't have that kind of power. But he might have had the fastest hands of any 220lb fighter I've seen, including ali.
GordonBrown
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 901
- Reaction score
- 0
Almost unforgiveable failure. Pretending other people said things and then telling them they don't understand.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,009
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Messages
- 18,264
- Reaction score
- 102
wvcruffler
Green Belt
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2006
- Messages
- 958
- Reaction score
- 0
Tyson spent some of his best years in prison. His hand speed was key in his KO's. He had short arms and could hammer those hooks to the body and head inside the defense of taller fighters (most HW at his time). He was pretty darn fast - probably the best combo of speed and power historically. He is top 10 heavyweight all time for sure. Once his button got pushed he was never the same fighter. Still will go down as one of the greats of all time.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 21,608
- Reaction score
- 7,355
Tyson was lightening fast, I'd say faster than Ali, faster than plenty of lightweights, you take that kind of speed and power and you have some fighter. His legs were awesome too which leads me to believe he physically could have overcome any style in boxing history but as we all know, the mentality was not there. I recall In Art Mercante's book he has a passage where he says about a fight he reffed "In the early days, no heavyweight, not Ali, not Tyson, was faster with his hands than Floyd Patterson". Interesting that two of the fastest combo punching heavyweights came from the D'amato style. Of course, we also have to consider how short and stumpy tyson was, his punches didn't have to travel as far as Ali's but even taking that into consideration his speed was shocking in a way which I've never quite experienced with any heavyweight.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 21,608
- Reaction score
- 7,355
Most of what you say has been said to death about Ali. My take on Ali was that he was a genius and genius' always break away from convention and transcend rules and logic. I also believe he was truly an artist, one of the most artistic fighters ever. Who the hell would even think about dancing with that grace at his size while facing men who could kill the average man with a single punch? Interesting you say he wasn't very good at fighting coming forward, I don't think that was the case so much as him feeling very unnaccustomed to it and not liking it. He seemed not too eager to go after Quarry in their second fight but he did it. He just preferred being chased, more art in it. I agree with most of your points but to leave out what I'm saying is just to be misleading I think. Anyway, Ali would have beat the champions before and after him. That's the important thing.
thelyricalmaste
Green Belt
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2010
- Messages
- 971
- Reaction score
- 0
Geniuses don't transcend logic. They aren't magic. They might break through convention, which is a very different statement.
In the case of Ali, his non-conventional tactics proved useful in some cases and less useful in others. Doug Jones did some very good work against Ali, but he didn't have the athleticism to push the case. Ken Norton also found weaknesses.
In the case of Ali, his non-conventional tactics proved useful in some cases and less useful in others. Doug Jones did some very good work against Ali, but he didn't have the athleticism to push the case. Ken Norton also found weaknesses.
