It may well be regarded as such, but personally I find it preferable to no wit whatsoever. I certainly would not put a after each and every post I make as i've just shat out Comedy Gold Nuggets when all i've done is underline the point that i'm a humour vacuum.. ps I'm also a fan of innuendo, double entendres, and slapstick so it sort of balances itself out.
Finally ? You having a laugh ? I caught you out after you posted less than five posts on this thread. You think Tyson was a great boxer. You obviously know **** all about boxing. You're a black belt in TaeKwondo without ever fighting anybody. Yet you would have sparred in every training session you ever had at any class you attended. If not then whoever trained you didn't have a clue what they were doing. You think that weight and height are vital when it comes to winning a fight. A strange opinion to have from someone who has studied a martial art as long as you say you have. One of the first things you are taught in martial arts is that skill conquers all. That is why men spar with women etc etc in all styles. You have constantly claimed your opinion as fact. You claimed Bruce Lee had never fought anybody. You don't know that to be true. In fact i gave you facts that would suggest otherwise. So, no not finally caught you out. Just finally gave up trying to educate you. You're on your own softlad
Tyson was a great boxer, he was exceptional in his younger days, at his peak he was one of the best. I'm not saying he was the best ever, but he was a brilliant fighter. I remember when he nearly killed Larry Holmes(another great fighter) From a spectators point of view there has never been a heavyweight champion as entertaining to watch, his relentless aggressive always moving forward style, made for a great fight. As far as Tae Kwon Do is concerned, I have said countless times that we sparred in training all the time and it was 90% of the time friendly. There was a couple of the more experienced black belts that would hit me quite hard though, so I'd give it back. But most of the guys I sparred with wouldn't have been comfortable sparring aggressively. I was never assessed in any of my gradings on full contact free sparring. The closest we got to fighting in a grading was step sparring which is not really proper sparring. I didn't say height and weight was vital in all circumstances, however weight in particular is vital amongst trained fighters. The skill is not what Conquers all that is complete nonsense, this is why all MMA foundations have weight classes. Women do spar against men. In my class there where a few women that came down, and they sparred against us. However it was always very very light sparring against them, it was always an unwritten rule that you don't go to hard on the women. If I dared hit one of them hard, I'd of been subjected to a full contact spar with my 6th dan instructor. My instructor was in his early 50s but in his younger days he used to compete and he won a few tournaments, so you wouldn't want to spar full contact with him. Bruce Lee never had a professional fight, so the most he could of done is had fights against other amateur opponents. I'm not saying Bruce Lee couldn't fight at all, I'm saying that he wasn't a top class fighter as he never proved he was. Bruce Lee probably could fight reasonably well with all the martial arts training, but to say he could compete with a world champion boxer nearly double his size is just ridiculous. If you want to compare Tyson to a martial artist, compare him with Gene Lebell, Lebell was a far superior martial artist to Bruce Lee, he just didn't have the movie star looks to get the reputation Lee got. Lee though respected Lebells ability so much that he used to take lessons and learn from him. Even when Lee was at the peak of his powers he was being taught by Lebell. Lebell was a Jujitsu and Judo specialist, and took up a challenge from a pro middleweight boxer Milo Savage, the match went on for 5 rounds and Lebell finally managed to choke out the boxer. It would at least be a more competitive match between Lebell and Tyson. He was definitely a better pound for pound MMA fighter than Tyson would have been (as Tyson was just a puncher) but the size difference would have been tricky to deal with.
So let me get this straight. You think that Tyson was a great boxer, exceptional even. A brilliant fighter and there has NEVER been a heavyweight fighter more entertaining to watch. Yet...... You go on to say Tyson was "just a puncher" Did someone say you might be a tad contradictory? Can;t imagine why Tyson was a construct.He was the One Direction of the boxing world. In the first year of his professional career he fought fifteen, that's 15 times and won them all by knockouts. What does that tell you ? It says to me that his management team threw him in with bums to get him a good record in the minimal amount of time. He was a brawler. Pure aggression and very little skill. At his peak he was great at what he did. Pummelling people into submission, By no stretch of the imagination does that make him a "great boxer" When he fought Holmes who was a great boxer at his peak,Holmes had been retired for two years and was an unfit 38 year old. Still, Tyson did do well to defeat him, I'll give you that. The fact that Our Frank managed to take him 5 rounds tells you all you need to know, He also lost his title to Buster Douglas who was nothing more than decent. The thing about Tyson is that nearly every fighter he defeated was heavier, bigger and had a longer reach than him so it's curious that you use him as an example of how weight will almost always prevail. You did not say countless times that you sparred on your way to your black belt. What you actually said was you got to the level of black belt without fighting anybody. It was me who pointed out to you that that was highly unlikely, It was me who reminded you that you would have had sparred with other fighters in the several years it must have took you to reach the level you attained. Women spar with men in every style of martial arts. Why is that? I'll tell you why eh. It's because any good teacher knows that to become a better exponent of any martial arts then you have to train with people who are stronger and better than you. That's how you learn. Skill will not always trump superior body mass but it will nine times out of ten. I really don't get your point about Lee and Lebell. It seems you are mocking Bruce Lee because he was wise enough to know that he could learn new things. Lebell was a Judo specialist as you said. That was not an art that Lee was well versed in by all accounts. So if you are going to learn it's best to learn from the best, is it not? You said it yourself earlier in this thread. In martial arts you never stop learning.
I said Tyson would be just a puncher if he stepped into an MMA fight, as boxing was the only martial art he was trained in. A boxers only form of attack is punching, that was the point I was getting at. Oh yeah and biting if we're talking Tyson I realise boxing in the true sense of the word is about landing punches and not getting hit, but who cares if some fighters are happy to take a shot, to land one of there own. If it wins them fights then it's an effective style. That has alway been mine and most boxing fans favourite style to watch, look at the following Ricky Hatton used to take out with him to Vegas for example? Tyson beat other good fighters, he beat Micheal Spinks in only 1.30 of the first round. Spinks was an undefeated fighter, who had 2 victories over a fighter you admit was great Larry Holmes. Frank Bruno was a world champion ffs! And your holding it against Tyson because it took him 5 rounds to knock him out, he beat him in less than half the fight He did lose to Buster Douglas in what was described as the biggest upset ever in boxing, with Douglas being ranked as a 42/1 outsider. That is obviously something people will hold against Tyson, but the fact Douglas was such a bad fighter, kind of makes you realise something was amiss with Tyson that day. It's like when a great racehorse is beaten 30 lengths, you know the form is unlikely to be genuine, and the horse was not right that day. The guys Tyson was fighting weren't nearly double the weight of him, nor would they have had nearly double the strength. A lot of them where bigger than him because they where taller. I've always maintained it's more about muscle mass, I've not been comparing Tyson and Lee's height. Tyson was built like a tank for a guy of 5'10! I did get to the rank of 1st dan without fighting anyone in an actual grading, that is what I have always said, I suggest you go back and look. We did sparring in training, probably every other lesson but I was never assessed on my ability to spar. Sparring aswell is not real fighting, it is rarely near full power, though you did have the odd exceptions, though only in training. I'm not really sure why I need to keep repeating myself on this matter. The point I was making is that you can obtain a Black Belt without fighting anyone. No grader ever seen me fight or spar. Only ever my instructor saw me spar, and he never graded me! My point regarding Lebell is why are we comparing Bruce Lee to Tyson when we should be comparing the teacher not the student. Lebell has a victory over a middleweight boxer, so is far more proven, and worthy of a comparison with Tyson. Bruce Lee's ability in a fight is all just mythical, there is no proof he could fight.
Tyson was an above average fighter during a terrible period of heavyweight boxing, he would not have lived with Ali, Frazier or Foreman at their respective peaks. He intimidated his opponents before the fight even started and then used his brute strength to overpower them, that tactic will only get you so far when up against a Class fighter. Of the all time list of boxers at any weight I doubt he'd make the top 20.
Surely the way Tyson won his fights, needs to be taken into account. He won a lot of world title fights by KO in the early rounds, many of those in the first round. I think in terms of raw ability he was up there with the very best, and at his peak he'd of been a match for the 3 you mention. He maybe doesn't deserve to be rated as highly due to going to prison and messing up his career But on raw talent he deserves to be. How many times did Ali, Fraizer and Foreman get 1st round KOs in world title fights? Personally id also say Lennox Lewis was better than at least 2 of them, as he defeated every opponent he ever faced. Rocky Marciano never lost even a single fight, so surely he should be ranked number 1 though
As has been said Tyson fought a succession of nobodies, that's what brought him fame, knocking out Z list journeymen. Marciano? He fought using a style that would be outlawed nowadays, in fact it should have been outlawed then but the racist Boxing authorities needed a great white hope even if that meant ignoring tactics that would not have been out of place in a limbo competition.
You guys have no idea what you are talking about regarding Mike Tyson, he beat plenty of top fighters. You can say Frank Bruno wasn't great but Mike Tyson destroyed Frank Bruno twice, even the 2nd time when he had just come out of prison and was past his peak . This is the same Frank Bruno who nearly Knocked out Lennox Lewis. Frank Bruno was a much better fighter than you guys are crediting him with. Just ask a great like Lennox Lewis how tough an opponent Bruno was, and Tyson destroyed the guy. He beat Tyrell Biggs a fighter who also fought Lewis, and Biggs has always said Tyson was the best boxer he ever faced! Biggs wasn't great by any means, but that's high praise from a guy who also fought Lewis! He destroyed Larry Holmes, inside a few rounds. Larry Holmes may have been past his absolute peak, but he came to the fight looking in great shape. 38 is on the old side but Holmes went on fighting for 14 more years winning his last fight at 52. Holmes faced Hollyfield for the title when he was 42 and Hollyfield could only win the fight on a decision, he couldn't knock Holmes out. Holmes even had a world title fight at 47, losing on a split decision. So he was probably past his absolute peak, but he was still a class act at 38 when Tyson destroyed him in a few rounds. He destroyed Michael Spinks in 1.30 of the first round, this was a fighter who had 2 victories over Larry Holmes. He was the first man to ever beat Holmes when Holmes was 36. Holmes was 48-0 before he faced Spinks. Tyson though destroyed Spinks career, Spinks had never even been on the floor before he faced Tyson and he had a record of 31-0 so Tysons demolition job in 1.30 seconds which included 2 knock downs, was something special. Michael Spinks never recovered from the crushing defeat, as he never fought again. You have to also remember Tyson was and still is the youngest ever Heavyweight world champion in the history of boxing, this is further proof of how talented a fighter he was. Prime for prime, like on the nights Tyson fought Holmes and Spinks I believe Tyson would have steam rolled through any boxer past or present, the guy was a fighting machine. He was impossible to live with. He unfortunately went down the wrong roads in life, and ended up wasting a lot of his undoubted talent, so will likely not get the recognition he deserves in a list of the best heavyweights. So I don't think his record is worthy of him being ranked at the top, but certainly his talent, and in a peak for peak match up with anyone my money would always be on Tyson. This is why across the world despite his obvious short comings as a person, he is still a box office name, he is easily the biggest name in boxing since Muhammed Ali, he got bums on seats like no other fighter has of the last 40 years. So if he isn't a great in your eyes then who is?
